Grant: Knowledge Synthesis Grant

An estimated $100 billion is lost to "waste" in biomedical research globally, annually, a sizeable portion of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One particular area of waste involves bias in the reporting of research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response to this, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (i.e., Journaology) of biomedical research. One possible reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engage in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another reason might be that the peer review process for both grant giving and journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, as well as having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have poor knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities for academic writing, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of the Journalology training opportunities or related evaluations of their effectiveness. We propose to conduct a systematic review to synthesize studies that evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in Journalology. This will yield a better understanding of training in medical writing, peer review, and editing, which will be helpful in informing stakeholders (i.e., heads of organizations offering medical training). The proposed review would also help inform potential course-takers about which specific training is most effective, or which type of training is most beneficial. The results will be widely disseminated to key stakeholders responsible for managing Continuing Medical Education and Continuing Professional Development.